Which has nothing to do with the fallacy and oxymoron of faith from of fine tuning.
The multiverse doesn’t replace God. The multiverse is a fact whether God contains it or not.
Here are some resources you might link to on your website!
Would I be allowed to put links up for the webpages I am working on? There are no commercial aspects to my website. The purpose on the surface is to share my photography and travel experiences. What is the point of taking photos if they can’t be shared with someone? Creation is in the name of my website so this opens the door for a discussion about creation. If I can put links up then you will know exactly what I am trying to accomplish.
I do not want to break any rules, but putting the pages up will show the arguments I am trying to make.
1 Like
To reiterate the point:
“no matter how complex and orderly are the arrangements of physical components that might be generated by purely impersonal and purposeless natural processes, they could never by themselves generate something with intentional or semantic content.”
Yep, go ahead!
Faith has everything to do with fine tuning.
Also when I hear terms like “Multiverse” or “Infinity” that to me means God without saying God.
What evidence is this assertion based on?
1 Like
Another example Feser/Taylor considers is that of a stone being found in the ground. If the apparent writing on the stone was found to be that of an ancient language, and could be translated, then it would be meaningful to study. But if the markings are the result of mindless processes, then meaning cannot be ascribed to the apparently purposeful text.
This is the page you get when you click on the sentence in the home page that invites people who consider themselves truth seekers and are curious why rational people believe in God -
Why God (honoringcreation.com)
I am working on the science reason now. One of the questions I was going to ask this forum is for recommended books, I see I am already getting help - thank you.
I am sure many of you will tear apart much of what I have written, I welcome the criticism. As I said all I want to do is lead someone to Christ, even if it is just planting a seed. I know a lot of my reasons are mainly opinions, but I am trying to reason for those opinions.
2 Likes
They are assuming that humans are not the product of a mindless process. They are assuming their conclusion.
1 Like
I love the picture! But it also makes the text near impossible for me to read.
I don’t see that assumption.
“Whether or not this is likely is, again, not to the point, and Taylor allows for the sake of argument that it might be a perfectly reasonable explanation.”
Go back to the original statement:
“no matter how complex and orderly are the arrangements of physical components that might be generated by purely impersonal and purposeless natural processes, they could never by themselves generate something with intentional or semantic content.”
In your example, humans are producing intentional or semantic content.
1 Like
I’m not sure I’m following. If an object is created without purpose, it cannot later be found to have purpose.
Yet humans are apparently capable of producing meaningful content. Is this your objection?
Hi Klax,
I understand that you agree with the atheistic view that Theism is a bad idea, but we were talking about the first picosecond of spacetime and science. So what do you think caused the Initial Singularity if not a Creator? Is your choice String Theory? Black Holes outside the universe? Multiverses? or other? And can you support your better answer? I am very interested to know what you have in mind.
On my computer and phone I can easily read even with my old bad eyes. This is good to know, maybe a problem on other devices. I really want to use that photo, I used a splash photo for all the linked pages but they were hard to read so I went back to the coffee cup header photo.
The problem is that the background image on your homepage is too distracting. There’s a lot of contrast in the image itself, and not a great deal of contrast between the image and the text in front of it by comparison. While some people won’t have a problem with this, others will find it makes the text much more difficult to read or even quite tiring on the eyes.
It’s probably best to keep images and text separate, but if you do use an image as a background for text, choose a low contrast one and get as much contrast between it and the text itself as you can.
1 Like
Well mere assertion wins again.
When I say terms like “Multiverse” or “hat stand” or “Infinity” or “Hieronymous Bosch” that to me doesn’t mean God without saying God.
What happened to you?
It’s a brute fact…
Yo William! That’s not my understanding, you’re welcome to yours. I understand that theism is utterly irrelevant to explain nature, it adds nothing to the natural explanation of nature, which lacks nothing. It can encompass and ground nature of course, which is my desire. It’s the multiverse. You don’t need more than one. It’s infinite and eternal. M-theory unifying superstring theory, and eleven dimensional supergravity field theory are corollaries of the simplicity of the multiverse. Relativity breaking singularity doesn’t feature. Nothing is better than the Kolmogorov simplicity of the infinite, eternal multiverse, bubbled up from quantum perturbations in absolute nothing.
How does invoking God help?